This House Believes That Reality TV Should Be Banned!

Michael presides: Hi everyone and welcome to the last debate of the school year! Today we’ll talk about reality TV: unscripted situations, apparently real events featuring unknown people instead of professional actors. Frequent interviews with the participants serve as the show's narration, and there is often an emphasis on drama and personal conflict. Competition-based reality shows, a notable subset, often have additional common elements such as one participant being eliminated per episode, a panel of judges, and the concept of immunity from elimination… So now please welcome James and Hadrien who are genuine reality TV actors! And now also welcome Julie who is a total fan of reality shows! We are also delighted to welcome Roch, a journalist who campaigns against trash TV, Agathe who is someone who intensely dislikes the genre, and our special guest, the famous actress Madeleine, who will voice her professional opinion… Beware James!

James is AGAINST: Thanks, fans! Let’s face it: reality TV is just the best way for young people to escape from their "reality"! They need to have a laugh, see the world differently... The settings make them dream: Miami, Ibiza, Los Angeles, Mykonos, etc. There are always beautiful girls and handsome guys, and life is more fun there: parties, nightclubs, alcohol, drugs, sex, fun, fun, and fun!

Hadrien is AGAINST: For me, reality TV is really amazing; everybody watches it! If you’ve seen a reality show in the last 24 hours, shout “Nabila!” There you go! And why are these shows so popular? Because they make us dream! Girls are gorgeous and boys are brawny in TV reality-land, I mean for real, not just when the cameras are on; just look at James! There is lots of sex of course, love sometimes, the girls often throw tantrums, but then that way we get less bored… And we go to incredible parties all the time! It is life as it should be, as you in this room would all like it to be, admit it!

Julie is AGAINST: “Let the sun shine, let the sunshine in!" Life at school is so boring, teachers are so boring, parents are so boring, and life is so boring! I would prefer to live with Hadrien or even James, wear beautiful clothes and sexy swim suits on my perfect body, and go to the beach with all my friends! I would have lots of money and just forget my boring existence. Living in a reality show is living your dream! I could become a body guard, a singer or a top model. Hopes and dreams give meaning  to our lives. When I wear those shoes, and watch her talk, I feel like I am Nabila, my heroine! “Les Anges (de la téléréalité)” is my all-time favorite TV show!

Roch is FOR: Good morning people, I'm Roch Le Cornec. I’m an investigative journalist. One of the things I have looked into real close is so-called “reality” TV shows… Fact: people watch television, too much TV. The government controls society through TV and people are no longer able to think for themselves! Reality TV is a drug: people become hooked on e trivial lives of these second-rate actors and copy their habits and values. It’s pathetic! This trash TV is destroying society! Moreover with SMS votes, the viewer thinks he can control the scene he is watching! But TV reality is not reality… We no longer have any control in the real world!

Agathe is FOR: Yes, it’s Big Brother watching… I am against reality TV shows because they do not reflect reality and everything in them is so false. As far as I’m concerned, watching reality TV allows people not to think about their daily lives. It is entertainment, but it is ridiculous. The candidates are stereotypes, like the “blond girl” or the “nice boy”. Some people follow the episodes religiously and get caught up in the histrionics. The TV channels make their money from the sensationalism.

Madeleine is FOR: Reality TV is like a very bad movie, I mean, it is really the dumbest form of entertainment. You see, the actors pretend to be normal people in “real life” situations? It’s the opposite of what a movie should be! Plus, the “normality” that is depicted is really immoral or amoral; most of the characters are stupid too. The actors are obviously making a lot of money, but is it honestly earned? They have no professional integrity! Their roles are not even funny. But to make people laugh you need talent…

You think that’s funny?!

Lucile: Welcome to our very serious conversation on laughter and humor! What is humor, and can we laugh about everything?

Alice: Why do people laugh?  Humor is the affirmation of ourselves, an awareness of our place in the world. It is the ability to see reality, at least the absurd aspects of it. Or maybe it is the nervous acceptance that we are unable to see or accept reality for what it is, our place in the vast universe? As Woody Allen said: “God is dead, Marx is dead, and I myself do not feel very well…” Laughter is also self-mockery.

Bénédicte: Laughter is not just a reaction to absurdity, it is also about communication. Through laughter, people share ideas and feelings with others, especially when they have the same sense of humor. Humorists provoke thought and discussion by making us laugh.

Marilou: Humor is also a means to be part of a group, of friends or at work. Someone with humor is usually well-liked; everybody likes to be with someone who makes them laugh. Humor is a means to feel happy, and we shouldn’t put limits on that. How can you forbid someone from being happy?!

Wesley: I agree that laughter is a factor of social integration, but it can also be used to exclude. Think of business people; they have to laugh at the boss’s lame jokes because he is the boss! Humor helps maintain the hierarchy in society. It is also an efficient management tool, useful in breaking the ice, in team building, in the all-important after-work parties, etc.

Alice: Humor can be nasty, used to mock someone's physical appearance, family situation, religion, or ethnic origin. There is a violent side to humor too…

Bénédicte: Yes, but there are legitimate targets for humor: the rich, the corrupt, the intolerant, the cruel, etc. To laugh is indeed to react, to react to injustice. You can make fun of other people if those other people do bad things.

Alice: Yes, but the danger is that humor becomes a weapon which destroys someone’s reputation… Think of DSK.

Bénédicte: I think DSK is a totally legitimate target for satire: a public figure who did something wrong!

Marilou: I personally think you can laugh at everyone and at everything. Nothing should be taboo when it comes to having a laugh. It’s almost a matter of survival, especially in the work place! I mean, if you couldn’t take the piss out of your colleagues or your boss (behind his back), you’d go nuts! According to a survey of 600 men, 73% said they worked better because humor was tolerated in the work place. Did you know that, according to researchers at Loma Linda University in California, laughter reduces stress by 38%? Our way of life today is very stressful, be it at school, at work, or at home, so laughter is a means to relax; it’s even, indeed, a means to stay relatively healthy in the brain and the body! People who laugh 10 to 25 times a day have fewer health problems than others according to a 2009 study published in the International Journal of Medical Sciences. When you laugh, your heart rate and blood pressure go down and you become calmer. This is why you feel a sense of relief after having a good laugh. Laughing at everything, at everyone, at someone, or at nothing in particular makes you live better and longer!

Wesley: There are different types of humor. The two main categories I would say are humor in private life and the one in public life. People have a more personal sense of humor in private life, as they know their entourage well, they may also laugh at the same things as the people they know well. In public life, people will be more universal so as to be understood by as many people as possible; it’s a means to be included more easily in the group.

Alice: Some people think it is rather dangerous to confuse public and private life… I feel it is different in countries like the UK or the USA, where there are more pubs, parties and so forth?

Wesley: I like political cartoons, don’t you? I think they’re clever, they put over a message quickly, usually because they make good use of satire; Le Canard enchainé for one uses cartoons to sometimes devastating affect!

Bénédicte: Yes, but it is sometimes difficult to share the joke, either because you disagree with the political message or because you just “don’t get it”… I sometimes feel a little censorship would not be such a bad thing!

Wesley: Understanding the joke rather depends on where you come from, what you know, how open-minded you are… If you try to stop people from mocking each other, it is like limiting their freedom of expression; after all, everyone has the right to say what he or she thinks on whatever issue! Sometimes, laughter is the only means of expression left, when action or ordinary words seem inefficient in changing a situation. Humor is a powerful political tool, which authorities sometimes try to censor…

Alice: You’re right; humor can hurt, especially as humor is by definition funny, therefore not supposed to be taken seriously, therefore not really dangerous! “It was only a joke!” is what cartoonists or humorists sometimes say to avoid prosecution.

Bénédicte: I think racist, anti-Semitic, or sexist jokes and cartoons are not funny. Suffering, humiliation, death, loneliness, etc., is no laughing matter either! Black humor just shows lack of respect for victims. Black humor is prevalent in societies that are losing the essential notion of respect for the individual…

Lucile: Yes, but everyone knows when something is meant to be funny, even if they do not find it amusing. There are obviously different degrees and types of humor, and everyone has their own sense of humor. Humor can provoke, create tension, express opposition and even loathing, but it can do the opposite too: for example, people who use jokes and laughter to defuse tension tend to have better marriages, according to psychologist John Gottman. Laughter is a good way of keeping the joie-de-vivre we had as children!

Bénédicte: Yes, laughter can be life-affirming! Illness is easier to stand if a patient finds a reason to laugh. It often takes the drama out of a situation too.

Alice: Sure, but it can be destructive too! The use of humor can sometimes be inappropriate and offensive: mocking people's physical appearance, religious beliefs, or ethnic origin can make a situation worse. Take the example of the Charlie Hebdo cartoons of Muhammad; what was the intention of the cartoonists, to shock Muslims? If that was the case, the cartoons could be seen as an incitement to racial or ethnic hatred, which the Law forbids!

Wesley: No, not at all! The idea was to provoke fundamentalists who want to stop anyone from expressing an opinion that they do not approve of! Charli Hebdo was defending freedom of speech! What someone finds funny depends on their social background, their socio-professional category, on how tolerant they are, on their ethnic origin, their tastes, their personal experience, and so on. Some people think black humor is fun; it is a way to laugh at things we take too seriously. It is in a way, paradoxically, a means of coping with tragic events or issues that are too horrible to really understand...

Lucile: Can you laugh at anything? No, not if the intention of the person who is making the joke is to stigmatize, to demean, to exclude… Desproges said we can laugh at everything but we have to be careful with whom we laugh, as they might not get the joke!

WW3? Article by Pierre Laubry

Click HERE to watch the BBC News video!

For a few months now, international leaders have been preoccupied by both North Korea’s nuclear power and missile programs. Indeed, after its space rocket launch in January 2013, NK has been actively carrying out nuclear weapons tests: three in February alone. Until now, the only international reaction was UN disapproval.

On March 8th, North Korea threatened to defend its sovereignty by launching pre-emptive nuclear strikes against both the United States and its ally South Korea, claiming that Washington is itself preparing to attack North Korea with nuclear weapons. The United States’ reaction wasn’t long in coming: the Pentagon announced it plans to add 14 interceptors, which can shoot down missiles in flight, to the 30 already in place in California and Alaska. But despite the isolated country's latest fiery rhetoric, analysts say the regime is years away from producing a missile with the capability of reaching continental United States.

US Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel declared: "The US has missile defenses to protect us from limited ICBM [Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile] attacks… North Korea in particular has recently made advances in its capabilities and has engaged in a series of irresponsible and reckless provocations." The defense secretary said the US would also deploy a radar-tracking station in Japan. When asked about the failure of a test of the interceptors, Mr Hagel said further tests would be carried out this year.

"We have confidence in our system," he said, "and we certainly will not go forward with the addition of the 14 interceptors until we're sure we have the complete confidence we need."

The only worry today is the growing threat of an inter-continental nuclear missile war between Pyongyang and Washington...

This House Believes That Love Still Exists…

Floriane: If you received an “I love you” card today with a chubby cupid and lovely little hearts, what was your reaction? Most people are really pleased of course, but some people say: “Yuck, that’s so kitsch!” Why? Well, for them, for me, Valentine's Day is just another commercial rip-off... In today’s debate, Maxence and Quentin over there will try to convince you that love still exists; they are FOR the motion that love still exists. Nicolas and myself, Floriane, we will have you believe that “love” does not exist anymore, it is just a gimmick used for commercial purposes; we are AGAINST the motion.

FOR

Maxence: Valentine's Day was originally a pagan ritual that had nothing to do with trade. In its current form, Saint Valentine's Day is a celebration of love dating back to 1496. Of course, in the context of our consumer society, it has been taken over by merchants (just like Christmas) to sell their over-priced trinkets: chocolates, silly cards, perfume, flowers, etc. But you don’t have to buy gifts to show someone you love them!

AGAINST

Nicolas: I agree that Valentine's Day is ridiculous; you should show you appreciate your partner every day of the year! Advertising is a powerful thing though because you feel you do have to buy something on the 14^th of February… Just imagine the consequences if you forget to give your girlfriend or boyfriend something… Yikes!

FOR

Quentin: Saint Valentine’s Day is an opportunity to share a special moment with your partner or to declare your flame. This celebration is really nice, despite the crass commercialism. But it’s not because of that “consumer society” aspect to the celebration that love does not exist on Saint Valentine’s Day! Love is for real on the 14^th of this month just like on every day of the year!

AGAINST

Nicolas: But, if love does exist, it should be spontaneous, surely? It does not need a special day; Valentine’s is much too contrived and a bit ridiculous! In fact, I think “true love” does not exist at all, especially on a particular day. Advertising just uses so-called “love” (i.e. sex!) to boost demand for things; it creates a desire to buy a product, that’s all.

FOR

Maxence: Shopkeepers have spoilt Valentine’s Day a bit, but they have not got rid of love itself! Love is a wonderful feeling, a mixture of magic and desire… It’s also about commitment and trust; if love did not exist, would we want to marry and have kids?

AGAINST

Floriane: Don’t make me laugh! There’s no “love at first sight”, there’s no whirlwind romance, there’s no poetry of ecstatic longing… If true love did exist, people would also stay married! Most couples get divorced nowadays, and people who stay married do so for tax purposes or “because of the kids”! No, Valentine’s Day is just a means of making us believe love exists. But it is not the only one! Did you know you can find “true love” on the Internet too? More and more desperate people register on dating sites. I think these sites show just what the true nature of “love” actually is: “love” is just a mix and match computer program! “Love” is the name of an online supermarket for lonely bodies and tired souls…

FOR

Maxence: But dating sites are proof that love does exist! It’s just a modern way of finding it that’s all! It is possible to meet someone that you can appreciate, who might become the great love of your life! The main advantage of online dating is clear: it gives you the opportunity to contact people who, like you, want to meet other people! You are sure to find someone who is compatible…

AGAINST

Nicolas: For me, dating sites are traps for the gullible; statistics show most people were well disappointed when they finally check up their soul mate in the flesh! Man, you must be real naïve and desperate to hope for love and romance on the Google box! I mean, what’s love got to do, got to do with it?! It’s all about ripping off lonely people and them not getting any looove!

FOR

Quentin: On these sites nothing is left to chance, you can target the characteristics that interest you or search the options which allow you to choose your contacts quickly and efficiently and to find people who match your criteria, increasing your chances to start a relationship on a solid basis. Virtual meetings offer the opportunity to interact with many people, but also to stop the exchange without difficulty if the feeling isn’t mutual. The selection criteria are extensive and include religion, intellectual level, nationality, social background, income, geographic location, or type of meeting wanted, etc.

AGAINST

Nicolas: Are you kidding me!? Where’s the romance in all this?! Your list sounds just like I’m going to have to order a pizza or open an online bank account or something, not find the love of my life!

FOR

Quentin: In real life, finding true love is quite hard for some people and internet can be a means of helping them find it. 25% of the people who meet online stay together...

AGAINST

Nicolas: That’s a figure given by Meetic and co. just to give people hope. These sites use the same method to make their money: bait the lovesick bachelor or single girl by giving them free access to the profiles of other users, and then make them pay for services such as contacts, sending or reading messages, chat, etc.

FOR

Quentin: Sure, but it costs less than sleazy night clubs! What counts is the result: real relationships are started online!

AGAINST

Floriane: It’s just so sad; a machine to find love?! Whatever happened to falling in love with the fleeting image in a café mirror, with the souvenir of her rare perfume, with the sweet way she giggled?

FOR

Maxence: You sound like an old romantic! So you do believe in love, then?! No, let’s get real here: meeting people online is practical for busy people, for shy people, for ordinary lazy people too. It’s also cheaper than having to take someone to the restaurant just to see if they might perhaps fancy you! At least an Internet date is clear! And you can get romantic from the comfort of your home. The worst thing that might happen is that you will not get a reply to your email. Our ancestors had arranged marriages, and our parents’ generation did not have the advantage of the internet to choose carefully their partner, they took whatever they could find in their town (hence the high divorce rate). Our generation wants relationships to be based on mutual respect, which means having to know someone really well; true love comes from this, not from some over-the-top romantic whatever. Meeting someone online is a good way of avoiding long-term disappointment…

AGAINST

Floriane: If love exists, I think it is changing for the worse…

FOR

Quentin: Love does still exist; we just have a less simplistic notion of what’s involved. We still want passion and affection and friendship, but we - especially women - want to be in control: we want to decide with who we want to be, when, and why. We are much more open-minded than before and I believe the mentality of people is becoming pretty good. Maybe we have learnt to accept that love is not necessarily forever and nor is marriage? John Gottman, the famous American psychotherapist, says a couple can only stay in love if there is also friendship and lots of humor. I agree!

Floriane: That’s the end of our contribution to the debate today, thanks for listening! We wish you a very romantic Saint Valentine’s Day, hoping you find the love of your life or of the next week at least! Are there any questions or comments? Would someone from the floor like to speak before we vote?

VOTE: the motion was carried by a small majority.

The UK Government wants to put off Bulgarians and Romanians coming to Britain. By Lucile Lestang

“Please do not come to Britain because it rains all the time, there are few jobs and the pay is bad” is the basic thrust of David Cameron’s proposed negative campaign to dissuade Romanians and Bulgarians emigrating in droves to the UK.

What is the reason for such an anti-patriotic campaign? Well, the fact is that in January 2014, seven years after becoming European Union citizens, Romanians and Bulgarians won’t be under emigration restrictions anymore. Several British politicians are therefore afraid about a possible massive wave of immigrants from these countries because the unemployment rate in the UK is increasing. Is Cameron shooting himself in the foot, after the UK spent billions trying to improve the country’s image abroad? Is this an after-Olympic-party hangover? Is the UK going back to its xenophobic and anti-EU ways? Or is he being pragmatic and realistic; what do you do when thousands of people you do not need turn up wanting a piece of the action?

The Guardian, dismayed by the attitude of the Government, launched a spoof mudslinging-at-yourself campaign; it asked its readers to send in mock posters for the erstwhile campaign. The response has been enthusiastic and shows up rather well the cynicism of the UK Government. It also reveals, through the usual self-deprecating British humor, the pessimism many feel about their country's future…

This House Believes That The Auvergne Should Become an Independent Nation!

Anne-Sophie is FOR the motion: Hello everyone and welcome to today’s debate! We hope you have had a good meal, a typical tasty meal from the Auvergne?! The issue we will be discussing today is: can the Auvergne become independent from France, in other words, is it possible for us, the Auvergnats, to become a separate nation-state?! Also, how independent can regions like the Auvergne be within the European Union? Antoine and I are separatists; we agree with people who think that the Auvergne should become a proud independent nation. We want self-government, and that, for obvious and very numerous reasons! We want you to vote for the motion. Pierre and Floriane over there are against the motion; they want the Auvergne to continue to be some sad appendix to a thing called “France”! We all come from Clermont-Ferrand, in the Auvergne, so we are all aware that something has to be done about this region…

Antoine is FOR the motion: I think we need to define first of all what a “nation” is... To me, there are three main elements to being a nation: a common history, common interests to defend, and the willingness to actually be a nation. As regards willingness to form a nation, you, the public, already know the answer: we are proud to be Auvergnat!

Anne-Sophie: Plus, the people of the Auvergne have a glorious history: Vercingétorix, good food, and excellence in rugby are just three examples of our rich cultural heritage!

Pierre is AGAINST the motion: Sure, the Auvergne has its own history, but so do all the other regions of France! It’s not because they have their own heritage that they should become independent! This silly idea of independence would bring an end to the Republican unity of the nation, which would be terrible!

Anne-Sophie: There are also economic and social aspects to the issue…

Antoine: Put simply, we want to work, in a sustainable way, and we want our region to develop, to become a great place to live in. And this is a crucial point in our debate: because, obviously, the French government has failed in its task of meeting our needs here in the Auvergne. We are isolated, with few motorways and no high-speed train lines, there is a higher unemployment rate than in most regions, and the greatest number of jobs is in the industrial sector, which is declining. The only solution to this deplorable situation is independence! With real decision-making power, an Auvergne government would be much more efficient, and economic activity would at last take off!

Floriane is AGAINST the motion: I agree we need greater efficiency in local government, but I don’t think the situation is as critical as you say it is...

Antoine: Yes it is! There is only one major company in the Auvergne, Michelin, and it is located in Clermont-Ferrand, the region’s center. Apart from Clermont-Ferrand, which part of the Auvergne is really economically viable?

Floriane: Rubbish! What about Louis Vuitton, Volvic, the Banque de France, Limagrain, Cantal cheese and lentils from Le Puy?!

Anne-Sophie: But what Antoine means is that the entire region could become even more economically dynamic with independence, though Clermont-Ferrand is obviously the most dynamic place because 44% of the region’s inhabitants live there, that’s 430,000 inhabitants. There is great potential for tourism, especially “green tourism”, and winter sports in Super Besse and Lioran. The Auvergne receives help from the European Union to develop its agricultural, gastronomic, cultural, scientific, and tourist assets. In other words, who needs France?!

Pierre: More dependence on the EU rather than on France? What’s the difference?! That’s no solution to our development problems either! No, becoming independent would only make the Auvergne’s isolation even worse. I think a good compromise would be to copy what has already been done in other European countries like Spain or Germany. Both these countries have more self-government in their regions than we do here in France. Across the Rhine, it’s a federal system that seems to work really well... What do you think?

Anne-Sophie: From my point of view, to adopt a federal system like the Germans would already be a big step towards the emancipation of all of the regions of France. However, I still believe independence for the Auvergne should be our ultimate goal.

Antoine: In fact, the real question, if you think about it, is what do we want for Europe: federalism or souverainism?

Floriane: Federalism adapted to Europe would be a sort of “united regions of Europe”, in which regions would have more importance than States.

Pierre: States would still have quite extensive powers, but each region in a more federalist European system would have a real government that would define its own policies on health, education, transport, etc., and receive funds, if needs be, directly from the European Union to develop its infrastructure and economy.

Floriane: The idea of souverainism is more a “Europe of Nations” in which each State has more power to decide what happens within its territory than the EU does. Brussels would have less say in a souverainist Europe than in a federalist one.

Antoine: I think more federalism could be a solution to the EU crisis. The fact is, in Europe, today, most of our decision-making and administrative systems are inefficient. Giving more power to the regions would make politicians and the people more involved in regional concerns, and policies therefore more efficient and appropriate. Indeed, the economic health of an entire nation depends on local initiative. What I mean is that entrepreneurship has to be promoted everywhere in the country, not only in the regions that are already developed. With federalism, every region could propose appropriate solutions and policies to local problems. More regional development and regional decision-making would boost the economy of the EU as a whole. Of course, this would need competent politicians at the regional level of course…

Pierre: The attractiveness of a region like the Auvergne depends on planning, such as the creation of real transport hubs. In order to promote entrepreneurship, as you say, important subsidies are required from the French Government, subsidies that Europe alone couldn't afford. Without these French Government subsidies, the Auvergne will never become attractive to investors...

Anne-Sophie: That's not true. European subsidies are all we need! There’s the ERDF, European Regional Development Fund, to promote regional competitiveness and employment, and the ESF, European Social Fund, to improve employment prospects and reinforce economic and social cohesion. The Auvergne region is already more or less financially independent thanks to these funds from Europe. From 2007 to 2013, the region got more than €206 million of ERDF, to reinforce regional firms’ competitiveness, as well as the region’s attractiveness. These European funds improved our employment figures, and contributed to paying for initiatives like the reorganization of several train stations. From 2007 to 2013, the Region received more than €38 million of ESF money  too, for the creation of jobs. We think that with these European subsidies, we could become independent, or at least France could adopt a more federal system...

Pierre: I think a good compromise between federalism and souverainism would be for us in France to copy the Germany model…

Antoine: I admire the German federal system too because it encourages grass roots (that is “à la base”) initiatives to economic problems. It is not “top down” decision-making like in France, where it is still essentially Paris that decides what happens everywhere! Like I said, more power to the regions would encourage a more competitive regional economy. And we all know that economic competitiveness is what France as a whole lacks! To my mind, federalism would be a real solution to the EU crisis, since it would boost economic activity without increasing the deficits of the European governments.

Floriane: Well, from what we have heard from both sides, it would appear that what most of us think is that if the Auvergne is to become wealthier, not to say happier, we need a more federal system in France and in the EU; we need more self-government by the regions just like in several other European countries. In fact, greater decentralization of power in every EU member country would make communication between Brussels and every European citizen much easier, creating a stronger European Union from the bottom to the top, without the interference of State governments!

Hungarian complacency? By Emma

Laszlo Csatary was the most wanted Nazi war crimal in the world. He was arrested by the Hungarian authorities on Wednesday 18th July 2012 in Budapest, 68 years after the end of the war...

In 1944, Mr. Csatary served as a senior Hungarian police officer in the eastern Slovak city of Kosice and is accused of the deportation of 15,700 Jews from Kosice to the Auschwitz death camp. He was condemned to death in absentia on June the 8th 1948.

 

On January the 19th 1945, he escaped to Canada where he worked as an art dealer in Montreal and Toronto under a false identity. In 1995, the Canadian authorities discovered his real identity and he then escaped back to Hungary. He lived there under his real identity for 17 years before being finally arrested...

Why did Hungary, a member State of the European Union, wait so long to arrest this Nazi? Perhaps it is because he is old. But, surely, once a Nazi, always a Nazi? I think he should have been punished for the crimes he committed, especially as he has not apparently shown any remorse...

Is Iran provoking Israel? By Sophie

There has been an explosion on a bus transporting Israeli tourists in Bulgaria. The result is eight deaths and about thirty people injured. According to a Bulgarian Minister, the attack was committed by a suicide bomber whose identity has not yet been established.

Benyamin Netanyahou (Prime Minister of Israel) has accused Iran of being responsible for this attack but also for many other attacks in places like India, Thailand, Georgia, Cyprus and Kenya.

Israel promises a strong counter attack against the Iranian terrorist offensives. But this kind of reaction may cause a war... Israel will probably react in rather a more discreet fashion.

Podentially dangerous! By Baptiste

Watch the BBC Learning English video!

The Belgian theatre group Time Circus offers hotel customers the exciting experience of spending the night up in the air... This weird news was broadcast by the BBC on the 30th May 2012.

 

Customers take part in a theatrical ritual organized by the hotel staff in sci-fi clothes. Then they are taken to their rooms: pods hung from trees in a Norfolk forest (UK). They are given the bare essentials. However, the room is very comfortable.

I think that this is fun and crazy! I couldn’t imagine sleeping up in a tree, it must be very cool. But, security measures are not mentioned in the video and the pods are very high up... I hope it is safe!

Should kids do holiday homework? By Lydwine

 
Some people think it is a good thing for children to work a little during the holidays because that way pupils will not forget what they have learnt. Teachers often favour holiday homework because that way they will be more able to complete their teaching programmes...

Others think holidays are holidays and that children should forget all about school during them! There must be a real break between two school years. Most pupils of course are in favour of this option!

But, what is best? Send me your comments please!

Iconoclasts in Timbuktu... By Hugo

 Read the ABC News article

Jihadist militants, linked to Al Qaeda in Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), have destroyed a holy tomb (UNESCO World Heritage Site) in the holy city of Timbuktu in northern Mali. This sacrilege has led to unprecedented terror within the local population.

We must strive to understand how, despite such acts, Al Qaeda continues to impress Muslims and to pursue its strategic objectives.

Al Qaeda's diatribe against "infidels" is in fact violent intolerance of all the forms of Islam which are not to their liking, such as that practiced in Mali and elsewhere. Jihadists seek to sweep away a glorious past to impose a totalitarian creed.

Also, nothing would make the Jihadist more pleased than to provoke foreign intervention; this would worsen the chaos in Mali and allow AQIM and its allies to portray themselves as defenders of Islamic lands...

I find it very unfortunate that such important monuments become stakes in this religious and political conflict.

Radio Hollande broadcasting to France. By Adam

 Read the Libération article on Radio Hollande!

This article was written on 27th March 2012 by a Libération journalist and deals with a great novelty in an election campaign: the creation of the first political Web radio: Radio Hollande. It is the Web radio of the Socialist presidential candidate which, since the 26th March 2012, has broadcast every day from 6 pm to 7:30 pm live from the HQ of François Hollande’s campaign; Every French person can listen to the Socialist programme for the presidential election. Radio Hollande is a Web radio where Socialists talk of France to the French.

François Hollande launched his official presidential election campaign speech:

“Each nation has a spirit and that of France is equality. It’s for equality that France had its Revolution and abolished privileges on the night of August 4^th 1789! It's for equality that the Third Republic introduced compulsory school and the income tax! It's for equality that the Popular Front worked in 1936! It's for equality that the Government of General de Gaulle introduced social security in 1945! It is for equality that François Mitterrand was elected! It's for equality that Lionel Jospin launched general medical care!

The issue of this campaign is France! A France of labour, merit, effort, initiative, diversity! A France of security for all! A France of Justice where Money will be given its rightful place, which is as servant and not as master! A France of solidarity where none of the children of the Nation will be left out! A France where the rights of the individual will be based on the equality of all! That's the choice that awaits you! The recovery is now! Justice is now, hope is now! The Republic is now! Change is now! Long live the Republic and long live France!”

Hollande sets the tone of his project, a project based on recovery, justice, the Republic, a project for France with real equality, equality being the very soul of France!

By attacking on all fronts, François Hollande appears, in my opinion, to be the candidate most likely to be elected President.

If you are already 18, do not just watch the results, go to the polls on 22^nd April and then again on the 6^th May!

Dédé drops out...

 Dédé's dead, dude...

On 14th March 2012, a journalist from the French Libération newspaper wrote about something out of the common: a bee has abandoned its fight to win the presidential election...

David Derrien a.k.a. “Dédé l’Abeillaud”, former candidate for beekeeping and biodiversity, withdrew on 14th March 2012 because of lack of sponsorship. He gave no instructions to his followers on how they should vote in the first round.

This information shows us that the sponsorship system requires candidates to be serious and to have a real political programme, which is not the case of “Dédé l’Abeillaud”.

The presidential election allows the French to choose the strong man or the strong woman of the Republic that they believe is able to govern the country for 5 years. The function of the President cannot be exercised by just anybody, that is why the sponsorship system is important. I think that a presidential candidacy must not be farcical!

What about you? Do you think Dédé should be allowed to run for President?